Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

is there such a thing as non-violent coercion?

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

[ QUOTE ]
His mammal point is terrible at demonstrating that. It doesnt do anything like that. And no one bases their pro-choice position on the premise that ALL acts of coercion are wrong. Merely the initiation of violent coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, reading comprehension? Half my point is that nobody holds the completely general principle.

Also his point does demonstrate that the silly general principle is necessary to make the OP's argument valid. It's a criticism that can only be avoided by offering the principle, so it forces OP to either give up the argument or claim that pro-choicers base their view on that principle. Technically it doesn't demonstrate the falsity of the principle, but it forces the arguer to come up with a completely generalizable explicit principle which non-idiots will immediately recognize as false. It leads down the road to disaster.

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely disagree

Cat = Mammal
Dog = Mammal
Cat != Dog

[/ QUOTE ]

But his point wasn't that "wealth = body".

Do you agree or disagree with the proposition AS POSED?

wealth = property
body = property

?

cat != dog

does NOT invalidate

Cat = Mammal
Dog = Mammal

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

The point is that dog = cat is a simplification of the OP point that their shared properties mean they should for all purposes be treated the same in this debate.

This isn't a 'political shootdown' of a view, its pointing out the the logic used isn't valid unless you agree with the statement Y about WHY they should be treated the same.

For this debate it is probably healthy to apply the logic in analogues, because the terms in the OP are so loaded on this forum that it will overshadow the pure logic debate.

Like this:

A is X
B is X

A & B should be treated equally.

As should be evident, this statement is only valid if you accept the notion that all X should be treated equally. Which puts you back to square one - political debate.

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

But cat doesn't = mammal, just like dog doesn't = mammal, and wealth or body doesn't = property.

Mammal is a classification for many different things. A dog is classified as a mammal, but a dog doesn't = the term mammal, as the mammal classification is more than just a dog. Just like the property classification is about more than just wealth or body.

However, if you say that dog = mammal then any other mammal = dog. Likewise for property. Since if A = C and B = C, A = B. Basic logic principle.

If I say blondness = my girl, that's wrong, since she is not equal to blondness, she's just blond. However if I say blondness = the color of my girls' hair, that's true (as long as there's only 1 possible shade of blonde, which there isn't but you get the idea.)

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

This is one of the worst arguments I've ever seen, so profoundly halfwitted that it's not even worth dismissing.

Anyway, taxation is how you contribute to society's wellbeing. You don't want to contribute, fine, just leave our society. Go and live in Somalia. Not much tax there.

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally disagree. Property is theft, but you didn't steal your body.

Re: Pro-choicers must be anti-tax, no?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wealth != body

[/ QUOTE ]

wealth = property

body = property

agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally disagree. Property is theft, but you didn't steal your body.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is property stolen from?

Also, you guys sure did extrapolate a lot from my simple question.